"The fossils are just fossils" - superficially that's correct but are you not familiar with the saying 'context determines meaning'?
The 'context' of any fossil is where it came to lie in the layers of rock that preserved it and what forms of life exist below (i.e. older) and above (i.e. younger) it in those strata.
The only thing you know is they were in the ground and they are fossils, rock layers can come down quickly or over time *see mount Helens* be that as it may timing is everything. The rate that it takes to accumulate all the necessary changes, and the amount of time available is insufficient. When you consider that the only time a chance occurrence can take place is when all the requirements are met in a single place and time, and then the risk of some future reaction could void it all. I don't have an issue if we move from mindlessness to design, then all timing and necessary ingredients can be automatic be taken care of. So I'm never suggesting it cannot happen, just that mindlessness is not up to the task no matter how much time you have.
"...rock layers can come down quickly or over time *see mount Helens*"
Do you seriously think that highly trained professional Geologists and Paleontologists can't tell the difference between igneous rocks (created by cooling magma) and sedimentary ones (laid down over millions of years by deposits of sediments in ancient seas)?
Your opinion of scientific scholarship may be as low as it can be but you need to make yourself better informed.
Well, what is the difference, because rock layers are rock layers? This isn't the main point I was making anyway, I can give you any amount of time you desire, it is meaningless, it isn't lots of time that is important it is timing! As I pointed out earlier, everything has to be in place for a single chance to exist to start life, if anything is missing, it doesn't happen, if something gets spoiled due to temperature, humidity, contamination due to some non-helpful chemical reaction it is over. You cannot willy-nilly, or haphazardly alter highly functional code that is directing a multitude of processes without destroying something without knowing what you are doing. Both of those make it clear a mindless process goes against all of nature as it is.
You seem to be moving the focus of the discussion from your utterly false claim that all living forms were created at much the same time - they weren't and a schoolboy could tell as much by just looking at what fossils exist in particular strata.
The conclusion that living forms evolved over very long periods of time is irrefutable given modern understanding, so give up trying to refute it!
No, I don't care when you think NEW LIFE appeared, if it was through a progression of time from a common ancestor evolving into the diverse life we see today, or if it popped up over and over in different periods creating different types of species, the problem remains the same, and fossils do not help one way or another.
The problem is the information driving all of the processes, instructions don't just happen by happenstance, and instructional information only comes from one source a mind, not a mindless goalless, uncaring set of circumstances over time. Seeing a fossil even correctly identifying the period we first see it, doesn't answer any question as to the mechanisms involved in its arrival in the first place. Since we have in our current period life that is simpler by comparison to other life far more complex suggesting simpler is prior to more complex doesn't explain anything concerning the mechanisms it only gives a story that isn't true with what we see today.
That's a different discussion but it's good to see you've abandoned your claim that all living forms emerged at the same time.
You cannot prove your position by restating your position, it is circular.
I'm not stating or restating some 'position', I'm stating a number of facts.
Which particular facts in my post do you disagree with?
I'm saying you don't know the age due to rates we see in the here and now, without knowing how it all started all you have are rates in the here and now.
That's a different discussion but it's good to see you've abandoned your claim that all living forms emerged at the same time.
I believe they all started at the same time, the thing I believe in doesn't change with new information it remains consistent while science is constantly forced to change. You have no idea how life started, none, what so ever, they all started at once with one life form beginning it all or new life springing up, again and again, you have nothing that tells you this is how it started, you can only look at what is here and now and come up with something that will have to be altered the next time something comes up that shows your errors.
"the thing I believe in doesn't change with new information it remains consistent while science is constantly forced to change"
I couldn't have expressed your position better - having to modify and refine a model of some natural system is exactly what you should expect as new evidence is uncovered because we can't hope to understand all related aspects from the beginning.
Knowledge is an evolving process and that is how science works.
By contrast, when you place complete belief in a system of dogma, you never need to change your opinions because you're deaf, dumb and blind to actual evidence that challenges that system of dogma.
I'm saying you don't know the age due to rates we see in the here and now, without knowing how it all started all you have are rates in the here and now.
Have you ever bothered to read up on the scientific basis of dating ancient rocks? Scientists don't guess at answers to questions such as when was this particular strata laid down.
You cannot prove your position by restating your position, it is circular.
I'm not stating or restating some 'position', I'm stating a number of facts.
Which particular facts in my post do you disagree with?
I'm sorry you stated a fact that showed us what again?
I'm saying you don't know the age due to rates we see in the here and now, without knowing how it all started all you have are rates in the here and now.
Have you ever bothered to read up on the scientific basis of dating ancient rocks? Scientists don't guess at answers to questions such as when was this particular strata laid down.
It doesn't matter to me how old the rocks are, even if correct the mechanisms that are driving all the living processes had to begin somewhere, maintain themselves, error check, and all of the necessary fundamental forces in the universe that are set up for supporting life here had to have a beginning too, and rock ages don't account for any of that right or wrong.
"the thing I believe in doesn't change with new information it remains consistent while science is constantly forced to change"
I couldn't have expressed your position better - having to modify and refine a model of some natural system is exactly what you should expect as new evidence is uncovered because we can't hope to understand all related aspects from the beginning.
Knowledge is an evolving process and that is how science works.
By contrast, when you place complete belief in a system of dogma, you never need to change your opinions because you're deaf, dumb and blind to actual evidence that challenges that system of dogma.
Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:
Dogma is something we all have, it isn't simply a religious thing, you can have a set of principles related to science as you can anything else. A system that must change by definition is one that cannot be thoroughly trusted knowing any new piece of information could cause a fundamental shift in how things are viewed. The biblical text has a much higher standard, it cannot change to suit the follower giving new information it is either confirmed or proven wrong.
The entire fossil record.
Vague
Actually, that fossil record is the opposite of vague. It is often very very specific.
The fossils are just fossils, the stories you apply to them are very specific.
Specific stories, which are also backed up by more specific evidence.
You cannot prove your position by restating your position, it is circular.
I'm not stating or restating some 'position', I'm stating a number of facts.
Which particular facts in my post do you disagree with?
It would help if you were really clear as to what you are calling a fact, and with that fact what is it that you think it shows us, I'm willing to admit I may have missed something, but I have either missed entirely or overlooked factual evidence for much here.
The entire fossil record.
Vague
Actually, that fossil record is the opposite of vague. It is often very very specific.
The fossils are just fossils, the stories you apply to them are very specific.
Specific stories, which are also backed up by more specific evidence.
In the beginning, God created everything, and look everything is here. How do you explain it all?
The entire fossil record.
Vague
Actually, that fossil record is the opposite of vague. It is often very very specific.
The fossils are just fossils, the stories you apply to them are very specific.
Specific stories, which are also backed up by more specific evidence.
In the beginning, God created everything, and look everything is here. How do you explain it all?
The fossil record is found to full of transitional species. Species Evolution predicted we would find, before we found them. And yet the YE Thought Police insist we are not allowed to believe in Evolution. Or teach it in schools.
Explain that.
Ahh, not so fast, the thing is we see a lot of sudden appearances of species, with new bodyforms and systems, out of the blue. Seeing huge numbers of unique fossils with completely different body types suddenly appearing doesn't lend itself to "full of transitional fossils", we can say this one is related to that one because they look alike, but we have that running around today with similar looking life, that doesn't mean one came from another. Can you point to a line of life with simpler forms and show us how they transcend into later life from fossils that can prove what you just said?
The entire fossil record.
Vague
Actually, that fossil record is the opposite of vague. It is often very very specific.
The fossils are just fossils, the stories you apply to them are very specific. And even those stories leave more to wonder about than answer. Accepting common thoughts there are spurts of new life in the different earlier ages, so where did all of the new genetic information that drives the formation of life come from? Accepting common thoughts on how long it takes for changes to take place and the age of the universe, and earth and concerning how old the earth is, and from there subtracting how long it was before it was capable of life, is there enough time when you look at all of the changes in the fossil record when applying what was needed and what was available?